Phoenix Rising From The Legacy Of Ashes

Just a few days into office, President Obama has already become an obstacle to Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups:

Obama has been called a “hypocrite,” a “killer” of innocents, an “enemy of Muslims.” He was even blamed for the Israeli military assault on Gaza, which began and ended before he took office.

“He kills your brothers and sisters in Gaza mercilessly and without affection,” an al-Qaeda spokesman declared in a grainy Internet video this month.

The torrent of hateful words is part of what terrorism experts now believe is a deliberate, even desperate, propaganda campaign against a president who appears to have gotten under al-Qaeda’s skin. The departure of George W. Bush deprived al-Qaeda of a polarizing American leader who reliably drove recruits and donations to the terrorist group.

With Obama, al-Qaeda faces an entirely new challenge, experts say: a U.S. president who campaigned to end the Iraq war and to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and who polls show is well liked throughout the Muslim world.

[Emphasis mine]

Of course, Obama’s honeymoon with the Muslim world–and with Americans, for that matter–won’t last forever.

But what this underscores is what a lot of we progressives have been saying for a long time: that George Bush has been a boon for terrorist recruitment.  Everything from Iraq to Guantanamo Bay to Abu Ghraib to waterboarding and “enhanced interrogation techniques” have vindicated the poisonous propaganda terrorists have spread throughout the Muslim world about the United States.   Having a president who rejects those policies poses a significant threat to terrorist groups, who have used the strife and bloodshed of the past 8 years or to advance their savage agendas.

Global terrorism increased under George Bush because of the policies he employed; hopefully President Obama will heal some of the wounds that have infected the Muslim world’s view of the United States.

Joe The Chunder

Sam “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher comments from Israel on the state of modern war reporting:

You don’t need to see what’s happening every day, that’s my personal opinion, you don’t have to share it. But, you know, okay, you don’t have to see, you know, 800 dead, 801 dead. It’s like they drill that in your head. … They want you to sit there saying there are so many people dying. You know these are large, these are numbers, you know I don’t want to take away from that. Let me, uh, think about how to say that again. Just essentially, they keep drilling it into your head, newscast after newscast after newscast.

I think the military should decide what information to give the media and then the media can release it to the public. I don’t believe they need to be in the front lines with soldiers, I don’t believe they need to, uh, you know, be bothering the military for information or for access to certain areas.

Actually, allowing the military to have complete control over the flow of information in and out of war zones is a terrible idea.

First, it goes without saying that the constant bravery of American soldiers deserves our eternal thanks and praise.  Still, the military isn’t perfect.  Like any other part of the federal government, it can–and does–make mistakes, sometimes big ones.

Having an objective media present in war zones can help expose and remedy problems with the military, thus making our armed forces stronger.  Having journalists in war zones also  serves as a check on the military, ensuring that soldiers follow protocol and remain professional.

Actual war correspondent Bill Roggio makes the same point:

[I]f Joe’s spent any real time with the military, he’d know they typically don’t want reporters to cheerlead for them. In my experience, all the troops on the ground want is a fair shake (senior commanders may or may not want such candor). If something is working, they want you to tell that story, and if something is going wrong, they want that story out there too. One reason for the latter is that often the media can serve as a back door to get some problems fixed that the chain of command may be ignoring.

For those of you keeping track, this is strike three for Sam Wurzelbacher.

I wonder when Pajamas Media will get sick of taking flack for Sam’s tidbits of inane right-wing commentary and just call him home, already.  Heck, even Pajamas Media’s own commentators don’t know what they were thinking by sending him to Israel.

How long it will take for conservatives to realize just how much Wurzelbacher is damaging their credibility? If they had any sense, they’d stop treating him like some kind of bizarre right-wing folk hero and just dump him–there are plenty of conservatives out there with good ideas,  why keep promoting the ones with bad ideas?

Joe The Blunder (UPDATED)

Sam “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher’s trip to Israel isn’t going very well.

First, he criticized reporting from war zones…while he was reporting from a war zone.

Now he’s gotten into a fight with an Israeli journalist for not being pro-Israel enough:

JOE: The story here is people are being killed and the media’s slanting it and trying to make it Hamas is, uh, as far as, that Israel’s being bad. Do you believe Israel is bad?

REPORTER: Do I believe it?

JOE: Yeah, do you?!

REPORTER: I’m Israeli, so…

JOE: So answer the question!

REPORTER: No, I don’t think Israel is bad.

JOE: Do you think Israel has every right to protect itself?

REPORTER: Yeah.

[pause]

JOE: You do?!

REPORTER: Yeah.

JOE: Have you said that on air?

REPORTER: I’m just a reporter.

That’s modern conservative punditry for you–embarrassingly ignorant and unnecessarily belligerent. Are conservatives really letting this guy speak for them? Wasn’t Sarah Palin bad enough?

UPDATE: And here’s what Bill Roggio–an actual war correspondent–has to say:

I believe the media should have access during conflicts. Shutting the media out would entirely concede the information to al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, etc. who are increasingly developing sophisticated information strategies. Yes, there is bad and slanted reporting coming out of the combat zones, but there also are good reporters out there who can get the story right. The public needs to hear these stories to understand the nature of the war.

Third, if Joe’s spent any real time with the military, he’d know they typically don’t want reporters to cheerlead for them. In my experience, all the troops on the ground want is a fair shake (senior commanders may or may not want such candor). If something is working, they want you to tell that story, and if something is going wrong, they want that story out there too. One reason for the latter is that often the media can serve as a back door to get some problems fixed that the chain of command may be ignoring.

Finally, Joe is advocating a 1940’s media strategy for wars that are being fought in the 21st Century. We can’t roll back the mass access to print, television, the Internet, cell phones, etc. and push the news on grainy films at the theater.

Joe The Bluster

Sam “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher, commenting on war reporting from Israel:

“I’ll be honest with you. I don’t think journalists should be anywhere allowed war. I mean, you guys report where our troops are at. You report what’s happening day to day. You make a big deal out of it. I-I think it’s asinine. You know, I liked back in World War I and World War II when you’d go to the theater and you’d see your troops on, you know, the screen and everyone would be real excited and happy for’em. Now everyone’s got an opinion and wants to downer–and down soldiers. You know, American soldiers or Israeli soldiers. I think media should be abolished from, uh, you know, reporting. You know, war is hell. And if you’re gonna sit there and say, ‘Well look at this atrocity,’ well you don’t know the whole story behind it half the time, so I think the media should have no business in it.”

[Emphasis added]

Obviously Wurzelbacher doesn’t think nobody should be allowed to report on wars, otherwise he wouldn’t be  in Israel milking his fifteen minutes.  He just thinks  war reporting should be restricted to people with certain opinions–apparently he doesn’t understand the difference between journalism and propaganda. Hey, maybe that’s why they have journalism schools.

Of course, the most brilliant part of this is that he’s attacking media outlets for reporting from war zones…after being sent by a media outlet to report from a war zone.

Sadly, that’s modern conservative punditry for you, where “nobody else should be allowed to do what I’m allowed to do; only people with certain opinions should speak; reporters shouldn’t be allowed to report” is considered smart and insightful.

It’s going to be a long few years…

Necessary Evils (UPDATED)

This is a good development:

The incoming Obama administration is prepared to abandon George Bush’s ­doctrine of isolating Hamas by establishing a channel to the Islamist organisation, sources close to the transition team say.

The move to open contacts with Hamas, which could be initiated through the US intelligence services, would represent a definitive break with the Bush ­presidency’s ostracising of the group. The state department has designated Hamas a terrorist organisation, and in 2006 ­Congress passed a law banning US financial aid to the group.

[…]

There is no talk of Obama approving direct diplomatic negotiations with Hamas early on, but he is being urged by advisers to initiate low-level or clandestine approaches, and there is growing recognition in Washington that the policy of ostracising Hamas is counter-productive. A tested course would be to start ­contacts through Hamas and the US intelligence services, similar to the secret process through which the US engaged with the PLO in the 1970s.

Our policy of isolating groups like Hamas isn’t working–they’re going to launch attacks regardless of whether or not the United States talks to them. But, by talking to them, we have an opportunity to prevent those attacks (and the wars that result from them).

Conservatives won’t be happy about this, but their opinion on this matter is hardly credible–after 8 years of Bush-style isolation, Hamas and Israel are fighting a full-blown war; whatever the point of isolation was, it clearly didn’t work.

I figure there will be two arguments conservatives use against engaging with groups like Hamas:

  • By talking to them we legitimize them.

Let’s face it, they don’t need the United States for legitimacy. Terrorist groups have enough popular support to make them dangerous, which is what makes them a problem worthy of our attention in the first place. Plus, in the last Palestinian elections Hamas won by a wide margin; they’ve already been legitimized through popular support. By isolating them we’re not de-legitimizing them, we’re just ignoring opportunities to neutralize them as a threat.

  • We can’t appease terrorist groups.

There is a difference between talking to someone and negotiating with them, and there’s an even bigger difference between negotiating with someone and appeasing them. Nobody is talking about making any kind of concessions to–or even agreement with–Hamas; America doesn’t give anything up by establishing low-level contact with them.

UPDATED: But I do agree with this:

Whether one agrees with the notion of the U.S. opening a direct diplomatic channel to Hamas or not, talking about it right now is very poor timing. If nothing else it makes it appear that Hamas is being rewarded for its behavior in the past month.

If low-level talks with Hamas are initiated, there needs to be space between when the current conflict and when talks start; America definitely can’t be seen as rewarding Hamas, even if that’s not why this is happening.

Glenn Beck: Moron

Think Progress brings us this gem:

BECK: Can someone please retract the Jimmy Carter Nobel Peace Prize? Can someone please say, “You know what Jim, we gotta take that back. I don’t know what we were thinking, but there hasn’t been all that much peace there.” … Eh, I don’t think you get the prize for the peace when the peace didn’t really happen. … Can we take his peace prize back from him?

Uh, Glenn? You’re are aware that the current fighting is between Israel and the Palestinians, right? And that Jimmy Carter brokered a peace between Israel and the Egyptians? And do know that the Palestinians and the Egyptians are two different peoples living in two different countries, correct?

So, what’s your point? That someone who brokered a 30-year peace between two perpetually-warring nations doesn’t deserve a Nobel Peace Prize? Or are you just saying that nobody is entitled to a peace prize because there still happens to be war in the world? I don’t know.

Then again, a few years ago conservatives like Beck were trying to nominate Rush Limbaugh for a Nobel Peace Prize, which just goes to show how poor their judgment on this issue is.  Or maybe it just shows us that they don’t know what the word “peace” means.

Yet, Beck & co. are paid ridiculously large sums of money to provide commentary for news networks.  Hey, CNN and Fox, I’ll make you a deal–I’ll give you commentary twice as good as Beck’s for half the price.  And I won’t even bungle up basic facts like the difference between Palestinians and Egyptians.

BREAKING: Israel Invades Gaza

The Israel-Palestine conflict has escalated into a ground war:

Israeli tanks and troops swept across the border into Gaza on Saturday night, opening a ground war against the militant group Hamas after a week of intense airstrikes.

The Israeli military said in a statement that the objective of the ground campaign was “to destroy the terrorist infrastructure of Hamas,” the militant Islamic group that controls the area, “while taking control of some of the rocket launching sites” that Hamas uses to fire at southern Israel.

The ground campaign brought new risks to the Israeli Army, not least because Hamas has had 18 months since Israel withdrew from the territory to smuggle in more lethal weapons against tanks and troops. Hamas’s more sophisticated arsenal has been on display over the last weeks, as it has launched scores of longer range rockets from Gaza into Israeli cities.

Israeli officials said they want to strike a hard blow against Hamas, improve Israeli deterrence and significantly change the security situation in southern Israel, where residents have been plagued by rocket fire out of Gaza for years.

[…]

Officials have stated repeatedly that the aim is not to fully reoccupy Gaza. But it was clear that the military was leaving the door open for a long-term operation; a spokesman said Saturday that the ground push “will continue on the basis of ongoing situational assessments.” And it remained an open question whether Israel would try to eliminate the Hamas government.

In all likelihood, Israel will either topple the Hamas government, or at least cripple their ability to govern enough to effectively topple them.

Unfortunately, this is a setback for both sides.  The Palestinians lost the ground they gained when Israel withdrew from Gaza and turned over control of the territory.  And Israel’s invasion will probably strengthen Hamas’ standing with the Palestinian people, radicalizing them and making future progress more difficult.

Israel-Palestine: Unintended Consequences

Palestinian journalist Daoud Kuttab writes in the Washington Post:

The disproportionate and heavy-handed Israeli attacks on Gaza have been a bonanza for Hamas. The movement has renewed its standing in the Arab world, secured international favor further afield and succeeded in scuttling indirect Israeli-Syrian talks and direct Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. It has also greatly embarrassed Israel’s strongest Arab neighbors, Egypt and Jordan.

While it is not apparent how this violent confrontation will end, it is abundantly clear that the Islamic Hamas movement has been brought back from near political defeat while moderate Arab leaders have been forced to back away from their support for any reconciliation with Israel

In all likelihood, Israel is probably trying to weaken Hamas, not strengthen them; but, just like the war in Iraq, their attempt to reduce terrorism simply ended up increasing it. Violence and victiminzation are extremely effective recruiting tool for terrorist organizations, who wave the bloody shirt of what they portray as western aggression to radicalize Middle Eastern Muslims and swell their own ranks.

It’s in Israel’s–and probably Palestine’s–best interests for Hamas to become weakend, so they will be replaced by the more moderate Fatah in the next elections.  Unfortunately for everyone, Israel’s heavy-handed actions (even though they do have a right to defend themselves, their response was a bit over the top), which have lead to the deaths of between 300 and 400 Palestinians, has virtually guaranteed that Hamas will remain in power, further complicating the road to peace.

Legacy

While hundreds of people are being killed in fighting between Israel and Palestine, with Israel declaring “all-out war” on Palestinian group Hamas, the 43rd President of the United States is on vacation.

And he is refusing to end his vacation to go back to Washington and deal with the crisis. Which isn’t surprising, considering 43’s status as the most vacation-happy president in all of American history, despite the myriad crises that have occurred during his tenure.

That, above all else, will be the legacy of George W. Bush: inaction.

In August, 2001, while on vacation, George W. Bush received an intelligence briefing entitled “Bin Laden Determined To Strike In US.”  That briefing warned about terrorist recruitment and activity in New York City and cautioned that Osama Bin Laden was planning to use hijacked airplanes in a terrorist attack. Bush remained on vacation.

In August, 2005, President Bush was on another vacation in Texas.  In Louisiana, Hurricane Katrina bore down on New Orleans, threatening that city’s unfinished network of protective levees.  It was known well in advance what kind of damage a storm of Katrina’s caliber would do, leaving much of the city underwater and disproportionately harming those too old, too sick or too poor to evacuate.  Even after Katrina made landfall, Bush remained on vacation.

Despite what he and his advisers may say, history will not remember George W. Bush kindly–it’s more likely he will be remembered as a modern-day Nero, fiddling away while the world around him burned.

The rotting core of the Bush administration was incompetence, which is timeless.  Historians far into the future will still remember what that word means, and that’s the word they will use to describe America’s government from 2001-2009.

That, unfortunately for all of us, will be the legacy of George W. Bush.  History will only ever remember him more kindly if it turns out to be easier than expected to fix the messes he created.  There is just too little good in the past eight years to build a remotely salvageable legacy out of.

Israel-Palestine: Break The Cycle

The cycle of violence needs to end.

The war between Israel and Palestine has been raging for generations, and the most recent fighting are the latest battle in that war. But at some point, someone needs to step up and end the conflict.

Part of the problem here is that both sides are simultaneously defensible and indefensible.  Israel says they have a right to defend themselves against attacks using whatever force is necessary, even if it’s disproportionate. They say Hamas kills innocent people with the sanction of the Palestinian people.  They say they have to respond to terrorism with significant force in order to both kill terrorist leaders and and dissuade potential terrorists.

The Palestinians say they have a right to defend themselves, too.  They say that Israel is the aggressor here, first by taking their land and then by occupying and blockading their territories, leading to oppression and starvation.  They say Israel’s use of force against them is disproportionate and indiscriminate, leading to the deaths of innocents. They say they’re simply trying to protect their people against future Israeli aggression.

Both sides are right and wrong.  Innocent people are killed on both sides of the border.  Collective punishment is exacted by–and on–both sides. That’s the problem with a cycle of violence–it’s cyclical.  Both sides feed the other, leading to an intractable war.

I’m not sure if any of the players on either side can act in good faith.  But there is only so much the US and the EU and the rest of the world can do–at some point, someone is going to have to stand up and break the cycle.

Look at Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi–they saw a cycle of violence and oppression and they set out to end it, once and for all. They were criticized for being weak and lacking the resolve to fight their enemies. They were attacked, beaten, arrested and thrown in jail, but they never resorted to that which they sought to eliminate.  And, in the end, they won because they never wavered from their commitment to peace.

Someone in this fight is going to have to commit themselves to ending the violence and stick to it, no matter what. You can’t create peace by engaging in war, just like you can’t heal with sickness or feed with hunger. The question is, who will step up and commit themselves to peace? Who in this fight has the guts to respond to violence with non-violence, to eschew the easy road of retaliation for the harder road of reconciliation?

Israel-Palestine, Pt. 2

There are new developments in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine.

Palestinians are now crossing the border into Egypt in order to flee Israeli rocket strikes in the Gaza strip. One group of Palestinians has even “commandeered a bulldozer,” according to some reports, in order to create more openings along the border.

In response, Egypt’s military has opened fire Palestinians crossing the border:

Egyptian border guards have opened fire on Palestinians who breached the border to escape Israel’s assault on Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

An Egyptian security official said there were at least five breaches along the nine-mile border and hundreds of Palestinian residents were pouring in.

At least 300 Egyptian border guards have been rushed to the area to reseal the border, the official added on condition on anonymity because he was not authorised to speak to the press.

A resident of the Gaza Strip side of the border, Fida Kishta, said that Egyptian border guards opened fire to drive back the Palestinians.

Israel-Palestine

Yesterday, a fragile ceasefire between Israel and Palestine was broken when Hamas fired rockets into southern Israel from the Gaza strip, causing Israel to fire back into Gaza, killing at least 225 people.  Hamas is now promising a third intifada in response to Israel’s strike, guaranteeing that more violence is to come.

Sadly, this is the same pattern we’ve seen time and time again in the Israel-Palestine conflict:  Hamas strikes Israel, Israel responds with disproportionate force, Hamas uses Israel’s response to justify more attacks, Israel uses those new attacks to justify using more force against the Palestinians, etc.

Both sides are blaming the other for the current conflict, and the truth is they both deserve some blame.  Hamas blames Israel for using disproportionate force; Israel blames Hamas for attacking southern Israel in the first place; Hamas blames Israel for erecting checkpoints around Gaza preventing the movement of people and supplies in and out of Gaza; Israel blames Hamas for violence that led to the establishment of those checkpoints, so on and so fourth.

There is no use playing the blame game here.  Both sides are culpable for what’s happening, and trying to decide who is more responsible is a waste of time.  All parties should agree to a ceasefire and everyone–including the U.S.–should work together and sort out where this goes from here. Stopping the violence right now is a good way to stop more violence in the future.

The Obama administration needs to make the Israel-Palestine conflict a top priority, because the Israel-Palestine conflict is the beating heart of the war on terrorism; it is a major source of the ideological poison–the hatred for the west and the military force that defends the western way of life–that fuels radical Islam.

Kennedy Takes A Stand

In her quest to become the next Senator from New York, Caroline Kennedy has responded to a questionnaire from Politico which has outlined some of her positions on major issues.

Some of Kennedy’s stands include:

  • Caroline supports full equality and marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples.
  • Caroline opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. She supports President-Elect Obama’s plan to work with our military leaders to begin a responsible withdrawal.
  • Caroline supports the auto industry bailout package passed by the House of Representatives earlier this month and welcomes the president’s actions yesterday to use TARP funds.
  • Caroline Kennedy strongly supports a safe and secure Israel. She believe Israel’s security decisions should be left to Israel.

I’m glad to see that Kennedy is actually campaigning for the seat instead of just relying on her famous name and closed-door meetings with political elites.

The backlash against Kennedy developed, in essence, because she has no political experience.  Thus, if she were appointed it would appear that more qualified and more experienced candidates were skipped over in favor of someone from a famous political family.

If Kennedy actually started behaving like a politician–giving speeches, enumerating her positions and talking to the press–it could go a long way toward quelling the appearance that she doesn’t know what she’s doing and isn’t worthy of the appointment.

Embarrassment

John McCain says:

“[The South Ossetian War is] the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War. This is an act of aggression.”

So, here is an (incomplete) list of events that John McCain doesn’t consider serious international crises:

  1. The Gulf War
  2. The breakup of Yugoslavia and the resulting wars & genocide
  3. The genocide in Rwanda
  4. The genocide in Darfur
  5. Mogadishu
  6. The first & second Palestinian Intifadas
  7. The Israel-Lebanon conflict of 2006
  8. The London & Madrid train bombings
  9. The North Korean missile tests
  10. The war in Iraq
  11. The war on terror
  12. September 11th

This is just embarrassing.  And we’re supposed to believe that John McCain is a foreign policy expert? Where has he been for the past twenty years?

Like I’ve said, Georgia is a losing issue for McCain because it shows just how out of touch he really is.

Why Georgia Is A Losing Issue For McCain

Cross-Posted At Daily Kos

Right now, Fox News is asking me “Which candidate is better handling the Georgia conflict?”

The growing consensus in the media seems to be that it’s John McCain. But, if you look at what’s going on, it becomes immediately clear that Georgia is a losing issue for John McCain.

Let’s take a look at why:

  • It exposed another lobbyist scandal.

During the course of the war, it’s come to light that one of McCain’s senior foreign policy advisers was, up until a few months ago, a paid lobbyist for the Georgian government—in fact, his close friend and former business partner is still on Tblisi’s payroll.

McCain’s harsh rhetoric against Russia at the start of the war stemmed from Randy Scheunemann, whose lobbying work for Georgia means he has a major stake in who comes out on top of the South Ossetian War. The fact that McCain would allow someone with such a massive conflict of interest give him advice is a disturbing sign for a potential McCain administration. Do we really want another President who lets his administration be run by conflict-laden advisers and lobbyists?

  • It exposes McCain as out-of-touch.

McCain’s foreign policy ‘expertise’ took a hit when it came out that his major speech on Georgia was plagiarized from Wikipedia.

McCain has also made repeated references to Georgia being a ‘democratic’ nation, which is somewhat bizarre when you consider that Russia is also a democracy. And it’s not as if McCain believes only democracies are worthy of defending–he has said that military dictatorship Pakistan is an ally.

And we can’t forget McCain’s assertion that “In the 21st century nations don’t invade other nations.” You’d hope a Presidential candidate would remember the fact that the United States invaded both Iraq and Afghanistan, wars we’re still currently fighting.

Just to pick another example, Israel invaded Lebanon in 2006, another event you’d hope a Presidential candidate would remember.

And now there’s this from McCain:

We, we will decide in subsequent days as whether degree of provocation and whe– who was right and who was wrong.

Contrast that to what McCain said at the beginning of this:

“This should be unacceptable to all the democratic countries of the world, and should draw us together in universal condemnation of Russian aggression…Russian President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin must understand the severe, long-term negative consequences that their government’s actions will have for Russia’s relationship with the U.S. and Europe.”

So, which is it? Is there ambiguity or is Russia to blame? And if he doesn’t know who’s to blame, why the hard-line rhetoric just a few days ago?

  • It exposes McCain’s bad policies.

Think Progress brings us two of the worst:

Group of 8: McCain wants to kick Russia out of the G8 — a plan he reiterated just yesterday and one that a “senior U.S. official” recently called “impossible” and “just a dumb thing.”

Isolating and marginalizing our enemies just doesn’t work–just take a look at Iran. North Korea is another great example—the Bush administration engaged of years of dangerous brinksmanship with North Korea to no avail; as soon as they sat down at the negotiating table, they came to an agreement and North Korea began dismantling their nuclear program.

The last thing the U.S. needs is Cold-War-like brinksmanship with Russia, which is exactly what John McCain seems to be pushing for.

League of Democracies: McCain has cited Russian “behavior” as justification to create a “League of Democracies” — a radical plan with a “hidden agenda” to “kill the United Nations” and one that has been “greeted with alarm by some Republican supporters and wariness by important U.S. allies.”

This is just an institutionalization of the Bush doctrine of ‘isolate and marginalize.’ McCain wants to create a new UN that only includes the countries he wants let in (and I severely doubt they would all just be democracies considering how much McCain talks up ‘allies’ like Pakistan).

The UN is by no means perfect, but one of it’s major upsides is that every nation can be represented there. Take away the only forum that rogue states have to air their grievances and resolve their problems and you have a recipe for disaster.

I’m extraordinarily glad John McCain wasn’t President when this war began. His inconsistency, his lobbying scandal, his cluelessness and his slew of bad policies would have been disastrous.

To back up his hard-right rhetoric, President McCain would have had to either go to war with Russia or renege on his promises, making the President of the United States look like an untrustworthy liar, neither of which is an attractive prospect.

McCain’s behavior since August 8th should be an example to all of us why John McCain should never be allowed anywhere near the White House.

Leadership

Here’s an excerpt from a Jerusalem Post article on Barack Obama:

Two months ago in the Oval Office, President George W. Bush…was accompanied by a team of no fewer than five advisers and spokespeople during a 40-minute interview…

In March, on his whirlwind visit to Israel, Republican presidential nominee John McCainchose to bring along Sen. Joe Lieberman to the interview our diplomatic correspondent Herb Keinon and I conducted with him, looked to Lieberman several times for reassurance on his answers and seemed a little flummoxed by a question relating to the nuances of settlement construction.

On Wednesday evening, toward the end of his packed one-day visit here, Barack Obama, the Democratic senator who is leading the race for the White House and who lacks long years of foreign policy involvement, spoke to The Jerusalem Post with only a single aide in his King David Hotel room, and that aide’s sole contribution to the conversation was to suggest that the candidate and I switch seats so that our photographer would get better lighting for his pictures.

[Emphasis added]

Politicians are, by nature, extremely cautious people–they’re terrified of giving the wrong answer, of losing voted by saying the wrong thing. That’s why they surround themselves with a phalanx of advisers and experts and aides and others who can jump in at just the right moment to save the candidate from himself. Lord knows John McCain has needed to be saved from himself more than once.

Yet, the Bush years have taught us the danger of a President relying too much on his advisers.  When that happens, Presidential advisers wage bureaucratic turf wars under the President’s nose, leaving the right hand of the administration clueless as to what the left hand is doing.  In the end, it creates a divided, incompetent, hopelessly dysfunctional government that does nothing to help the American people.

Republicans say John McCain is experienced, particularly on foreign policy.  But if that’s the case, why does he need advisers sitting at his side, whispering answers into his ear? I mean, Israel has been a major political issue since long before McCain was elected to Congress, so why does he need information on Israel fed to him by an adviser? Shouldn’t he know this on his own? Considering the decades he’s spent in Washington, which included another Presidential campaign, I just don’t understand how he could have such a poor grasp of one of America’s major foreign policy issues.

On the other hand, Barack Obama–who the Republicans say is too inexperienced to be President–is confident enough to talk about one of the most complex and sensitive foreign policy issues out there without help from his campaign. Obama knows what he believes, he knows what he wants to accomplish as President and he has no problem just sitting down and saying what he thinks.

And, in the end, isn’t that what we want in a President? Don’t we want a President who can understand complicated issues and make important decisions without being pulled in a dozen different directions by a dozen different advisers?

As Harry Truman once said, the buck stops at the President’s desk.  After 8 years of blame-shifting and finger-pointing and responsibility-shirking, America can’t afford another administration where the President’s advisers are more powerful than the President himself. Personally, I’m voting for the guy who shows independence and leadership over the guy who can’t function without his advisers and campaigners and aides.

Obama’s Prayer

Today’s Electoral Map (From FiveThirtyEight): Obama 298.5 EV ; McCain 239.5 EV

This is the prayer Barack Obama left at Jerusalem’s Western Wall during his trip to the Middle East last week:

Lord– Protect my family and me. Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will.

If only our current leaders had prayed for protection against pride, perhaps we’d be living in a better country right now.

Flip-Flop-Flip

Today’s Electoral Map (from FiveThirtyEight): Obama 303.2 EV ; McCain 234.8 EV

Today was a day of Republican flip-flops

First up, John McCain:

After months of saying additional troops were not needed in Afghanistan, McCain changed position Tuesday and called for an additional three brigades — or roughly 15,000 troops — to be sent to the country. It was unclear if those troops would be redeployed from Iraq or come from NATO forces.

[Emphasis Added]

This was, of course, after Barack Obama called for troops to be pulled out of Iraq and additional troops be sent to Afghanistan, where the Taliban is reforming and violence is surging.

Next up is George W. Bush, the Appeaser-in-Chief himself:

One week after military maneuvers raised fears of war and the price of oil, a senior US official will meet with the Iranian nuclear negotiator. A deal may be in the works.

[…]

In a stunning announcement July 16, the White House disclosed that Undersecretary of State William J. Burns will travel to Geneva this weekend to sit face-to-face with Iranian nuclear negotiator Said Jalili.

Once again, the Republicans are adopting a policy that Barack Obama backed first.  In fact, the GOP attacked Obama for wanting to talk to countries like Iran–Bush himself went in front of the Israeli Knesset and called Barack Obama an appeaser for abandoning Bush’s policy of ignoring America’s enemies and engaging in pointless brinksmanship.

Now, I believe that people–including politicians–have the right to change their minds; I think revising a policy based on changing facts or situations shouldn’t automatically be labeled a flip-flop.  But the GOP is living by a double standard, and they deserve the same nonsense they dish out.  It’s pure hypocrisy– they attack Democrats for coming up with smart new policies, then turn around and adopt those same policies wihout apologizing for their smears or withdrawing their underhanded attacks.  And when a Democrat changes their policy, the Right-Wing Noise Machine can’t label them a ‘flip-flopper’ fast enough.

Republicans have shown us that they have almost no ideology, no core beliefs. They’ll say anything to get elected; they’ll engage in any underhanded attack, they’ll employ any smear they can come up with.  It’s time for us to ditch our flip-flopper-in-Chief and his protege, John McCain, once and for all.

John McCain & Earmarks

Recently, John McCain has promised to eliminate all Congressional earmarks, no questions asked.

Sounds like a good plan to eliminate wasteful spending, right? Wrong. As it turns out, there are some important programs that are paid for with earmarks.

Like military aid to Israel and Egypt:

Some observers define earmarks in a more limited way, identifying only provisions that direct spending for items not requested by the Administration or in excess of levels proposed for activities or countries. Although many Foreign Operations earmarks fall within this more narrow definition, congressional directives specifying spending amounts that are the same as shown in the Administration’s illustrative listing for country distributions also are regarded as earmarks. Annual earmarks for economic and military aid to Israel and Egypt are examples of such directives.

Earmarks also pay for military housing:

The Congressional Research Service analysis counts not only the [military] family housing units added by Congress as earmarks but also those requested by the Pentagon and the White House.

CRS identified $6.6 billion in spending in the 2005 Military Construction Appropriation bill associated with earmarks. This included 205 units at Fort Huachuca at a cost of $41 million and 250 units at Davis-Monthan Air Base at a cost $48.5 million—both in McCain’s home state of Arizona.

So either McCain is going to cut aid to Israel, military housing, and other important programs that are funded by earmarks (all to pay for his corporate tax cut), or he’s going to break his campaign promise.

As Politico’s Ben Smith says, “That’s one thing about spending cuts: Much harder when you get to the details.”

McCain can’t even be bothered to read his own plan–how is he supposed to be President, again?